In Defense Of A Liberal Education

Liberal arts and sciences differ in that it’s designed to understand human relationships to the social, cultural, and natural environment. In chapter three of the book, Zakaria hits on three of the ideas of a liberal education. To begin, he talks of the importance of learning how to think which is a critical skill in any field of higher education that a student pursues. His belief is that while a liberal education teaches one how to think, it does more so by teaching one how to write. Zakaria values “writing clearly, clearly and reasonably to be an invaluable skill.” The second advantage of a liberal education is that it teaches students how to speak. Zakaria believes that the ability to speak is just as important as writing clearly and with reason. He states this by saying “whether for public or private communication, the ability to articulate your thoughts clearly will prove to be a tremendous strength.” The third and possibly most influential strength of a liberal education is how it teaches students how to learn. Not only does it help students gain knowledge from studying but it helps students acquire knowledge on their own, for personal gain. Zakaria state that a liberal education helped him “how to read a book fast, search for new sources to find data, take notes and understand lectures.” These three values are continually stated in many articles or liberal education by both Zakaria and other professors who have wrote similar articles about a liberal

Published in Harper's Magazine’s September 1997 issue, Mark Edmundson’s essay, “On the Uses of Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” presents a very personal argument for an apparent crisis in liberal education–the lack of passion in students. According to Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia, “liberal-arts education is as ineffective as it is now…[because] university culture, like American culture writ large, is, to put it crudely, ever more devoted to consumption and entertainment, to the using and using up of goods and images” (723). He believes that consumer culture is responsible for students’ dispassionate attitude towards his class because they view liberal education as a paid service or product that should cater to their wishes. Further, he writes that universities feed into consumer culture, maintaining a “relationship with students [that] has a solicitous, nearly servile tone” (725). In this way, Edmundson lays out the reasons for why he thinks liberal education is failing.

When Shorris explains his goal to the prospective students he indicates, “You’ve been cheated. Rich people learn the humanities; you didn’t. The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reaction to whatever force is turned against you.”(Page 4) That the rich have had the opportunity to buy that type of learning and embrace it, while the poor have had more things to deal with like getting food on the table from day to day. Therefore, Shorris believes that a liberal education will provide poor students with a new kind of lens to outlook the world. With the knowledge of philosophy, poetry, art history, logic and American history, Shorris trusts that these students will begin to uncover hidden talents and interests that will inspire them and help them to not only solve problems, but also seek plausible solutions. He believes that these qualities would provide the poor with an escape route from the ongoing cycle that have them trapped and it will provide them with “a certain kind of life, a richness of mind and spirit.” (Page 5) After his first thriving year teaching this class, sixteen of his prospective students completed the course, which then some went on to universities.

The topic of the essay is liberal and STEM education, which is a very broad topic. He hits the main points and gives examples of why liberal education is better than STEM education. He wrote this essay because the country has shifted toward teaching more job specific and technical skills. Zakaria explains that liberal arts education made the United States have one of the strongest economies in the world. The countries that solely rely on STEM education can’t accomplish as much because the STEM education doesn’t provide workers who are creative and

The education system in America has a long history of struggle and change, as we have grown as a nation we have experienced an ever-increasing rise in diversity. This diversity has caused rigidities between groups and all stratus of society and has been a major impact in debates concerning the educational opportunities in America.

There is a reason why my college counselors always pushed for us to look into liberal arts colleges. With liberal education, you get to experience much more than you think is possible. Not only does one take classes that are specific to their major but they are also required to explore other fields that they might have thought was wrong for them. As the reading, “Only Connect…” The Goals of a Liberal Education by William Cronon phrases, liberal education not only deals with what a student learns in their classroom but it also involves the concepts of an individual’s freedom and growth. At first, I thought I only like the idea of studying abroad in South Korea because I watched Korean dramas and listened to their music. But during my time at Denison, I had the opportunity to take classes about the eastern world. I’ve learned about their culture, their history, and even their language. I’ve expanded my knowledge far wider than I thought I would ever. This opportunity to study abroad through CIEE is not just me trying to get my own satisfaction, but it is an

To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.

Throughout Ungar’s essay, he talks about the cost of liberal arts education, not necessary the financial part of a liberal arts education, but the cost of not having a liberal arts education and how you won’t be best prepared for the changing job market and how that can negatively effect the individual. Ungar talks in essay about the misperceptions of liberal arts education, he talks about how career education is important, but also how jobs and technology are changing and the jobs that might be in demand know, might change or become obsolete. Liberal arts college isn’t something that is deemed necessary for low income and first generation students but Ungar believes that with a liberal arts education, those students can achieve success and move ahead quickly helping ‘shape civil discourse’. Ungar believes that cost of education is out of control and although it’s a problem, the cost of going to a small liberal arts education will be worth it

In Rereading America an excerpt by Michael Moore entitled “Idiot Nation” focuses on the collapsing educational system in the United States of America. Moore brings to light his view on the failures of the educational system and the lack of financing that has been caused from the top of the food chain. Politicians as well as American corporations contribute to the decline in education according to Moore. He attempts to give the reader a clear picture of where America places the importance of educational funding. He follows-up with detailed examples on what districts and schools resort to in order to gain financial support for their programs. Moore is quick to point out the irony of politics and education in America

In James V, Schall’s A Students Guide to Liberal Learning, he addresses the idea and importance of an authentic liberal arts education. Schall inquires about books and scholars of which centralize around the idea of a liberal education and of which has shaped our society. Schall examines the works of several authors who are in his opinion the guides to learning, and his essay serves as a fundamental building block for the creation of a “Personal Library”.

Students today have been raised to think that college is just the next step in life after high school. Decades ago,going to college was a huge achievement and not many people enrolled. Today, however it is almost expected that you go to college. The purpose of college has been changing over the years. Students and professors have lost sight of what to get out a college education. Gary Gutting explains in his article, “What is College for?” that students are losing passion for higher education. He also believes that professors are not realizing what their true job really is, and are not doing the necessary procedures to help their students succeed. “In On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, Mark Edmundson shares similar ideas, and gives a first person point of view of Gutting’s ideas about the quality of the college experience. Mark Edmundson would agree with Gary Gutting’s claims that the quality of colleges is declining and is negatively affecting the students and faculty members.

“I don’t mind if I have to sit on the floor at school. All I want is an education,” said Malala Yousafzai, Pakistani activist for female education. In today's society, many people don’t realize how grateful they should be for the education they receive. Even the slightest education is much more than people were receiving just three centuries ago, and even more than people in countries besides the United States of America. In specifics, women and African Americans were once unable to pursue any form of education in the United States, along with many other ethnicities.

Education has been the subject of some of the most heated discussions in American history. It is a key point in political platforms. It has been subject to countless attempts at reform, most recently No Child Left Behind and Common Core. Ardent supporters of institutional schools say that schools provide access to quality education that will allow the youth of our country to gain necessary skills to succeed in life. Critics take a far more cynical view. The book Rereading America poses the question, “Does education empower us? Or does it stifle personal growth by squeezing us into prefabricated cultural molds?” The authors of this question miss a key distinction between education and schooling that leaves the answer far from clear-cut. While education empowers, the one-size-fits-all compulsory delivery system is stifling personal growth by squeezing us into prefabricated cultural molds.

Huma Liptak Professor Stark Scientific Approach to Human Nature Paper 1 Dear Mrs. Septer, I’ve been at college for three weeks. When I think about three weeks as a percentage of the last eighteen years of my life, it shouldn’t sway anything. Yet, in these last three weeks, I’ve grown more as a person than in the last few years. Three main influences are soccer, the connections and support that the people of Central have given me, and the liberal arts experience.

Further immersed in this controversy, the word liberal in liberal arts has been embraced by both ends of the political spectrum, and can scarcely be uttered without turning the conversation into a verbal duel between conservative reformists on one side, and liberal traditionalist on the other. However clear we present the term, the thrust and parry continues as the nation's leading academia and political activists attempt to separate liberal education from an education that indoctrinates students in the values of political liberalism (Horowitz, In Defense, 3).